Does anyone know if these are/will be in producion?
There are currently three available, but these are for theK8, not the K7.
Any help appreciated.
KV
Printable View
Does anyone know if these are/will be in producion?
There are currently three available, but these are for theK8, not the K7.
Any help appreciated.
KV
Nope.
They may be one more revision of the NF2 that has firewire and SATA on the southbridge - but the NF3 is for the 64bit range.
nf4 then? :D
no point in getting 64bit until they make use of it, such as 64bit software which isn't really out yet and doesn't fully use its capabilities.
there is point, the amd64s r fkn fast, with a 2ghz beating a p4 @ 4.1ghz.... and thats in 32bit mode.. i want one!
Nforce 3 is athlon 64 only.
I don't think there will ever be another chipset released for the Athlon XP as AMD will want the Athlon XP range gone asap to ramp up production of the Athlon 64's. I heard that ViA have another chipset planned for the athlon xp, but I doubt it'll ever be released.
I'm fed up of preaching about ther athlon 64 now, just buy one! :P
The XP will live on for a while, but as the next "Duron" :)
St3v3: Give me the money and I will buy one ;)
Quote:
Originally posted by |SilentDeath|
there is point, the amd64s r fkn fast, with a 2ghz beating a p4 @ 4.1ghz.... and thats in 32bit mode.. i want one!
The answer is pretty obvious. Now is not a good time to be buying AMD. Wait for AMD and intel to settle into the next price war, like at the start of the year and then buy. Does anyone posting on these forums have any software thats not satisfied by 3.5GhzIntel/2.2 Ghz XP?
- Is AMD 64 cost effective? Currently, no its not. Not even if NF3 rocks will it be of use to anyone with a budget of <£400 for mobo + cpu. Wait until the baby chip prices come to light + its overclocking potential is known.
- Is it worth spending £££ on new socketA mobo at the end of the line? Whilst you often are forced to buy both at once no matter what stage of the life cycle, at least you tend to have more room for maneouvre once things settle down.
- Is it worth buying into new cutting edge technology? Currently, if you have a problem you either swap in other parts you already have to diagnose the problem (or head round to a mates). Buy into this stuff and you are forced to play the full on Mobo+cpu in one RMA game. Add to that rapid mobo revisions meaning your cutting edge technology ceases to become non-cutting edge much faster at this point in the life cycle.
I agree, now is not a good time to be buying, but neither is the new year. Easter is looking good, PCI-X and BTX should be out around then in half decent numbers, the new A64 (739 pins, instead of 740 i think, might have got the #s wrong) will also be out.
All in all, although lots happening atm, its a b***** awful time to be buying given that whether you buy intel or XP/64, they will all be out of date come xmas.
However, given that i am losing this comp, i will be needing a new one ;) and easter is a long way away... HDs are cheap, RAM is cheap so ill b ordering the parts next week probably.
KV
Now isn't a bad time to come, also, doesn't matter what stuff you are buying, anything can die and need RMA'ing, diff chip mobo makes no difference whatsoever.
Yes the AMD64 is cost effective, the new chips will be £375 on release, and are faster than a 3.2Ghz 800Mhz fsb P4 by , well, a freaking large amount, the 3.2Ghz P4 being upwards of £450. So cost effective, considerably.
Having that little, "but there aren't any low end chips for cheap" type arguement, might well be valid, but, there will be soon, clocks are ramping up nicely, the 2ghz chips are said to be hitting 2.4Ghz, and getting over 25K 3dmark 2k1 at around 2.25Ghz i believe. Not bad(very heavily clocked 9800 pro, but much higher clocked 9800 pro, and P4 @4.1ghz p4 was needed to COME CLOSE< BUT NOT BEAT IT).
The athlon out in feb will be teh Athlon fx 939 pin version, dual channel non ecc needed type. The athlon 64 is NOT dual channel, but is kicking intels ass. The Athlon fx 51, at £650 on release, is about 10-12% faster across the board than the ath 64, but it shoudl be at that price. But, jsut to point out, a 2MEG L3 cache Extreme edition P4 will cost that much, and offer less than 10% gain from that cache(maybe 2-3% at max, few more in "tailored" benchmarks). So in other words, by the ath 64 and kill the P4 for gaming, 99% of home use, or get this extreme edition(maybe not even as fast as ath 64) and pay a shed load for it. But even then the ath fx will become the same price, and still be 10% faster.
IE, amd is only way to buy right now. If you do that, why settle for less than the AMD 64. I'd guess buy around, late october latest, they will be around for £200 ish. New speeds will be about pretty quickly by the sounds of things, and this fist Athlon 64 has knocked price of the Athlon XP 3200+ down to £250, from £380 yesterday.
Also, by the sounds of things, getting highest clock outta them, means changing multi, not fsb, as this seems to be limiting overclock. SO lower fsb, and bandwidth is quite a bit beyond the P4. This means cheaper lower latecny ram will be best combo. Also, via look like the chipset to have.
I have 2 theories for this. For one, it was annouced a long time ago, back in august last year, that Via had hammer chipsets in production, so they are on 2nd 3rd gen mobo's already, they have had a long time to come up with a great chipset. As shown by their kt600, their single channel, low latency knowledge is up to scratch, Nvidia's ain't. Also, as Via has been spending a long time, and lotta cash on AMD 64 bit stuff, you can see by the very small diffs from kt333-kt600, that they didn't realy develope it. They are pushing for amd 64, not the ath XP.
Nvidia, as i noted, took the market with a good dual channel chipset, that won't help them now, starting from scratch, they haven't ever made a single channel mobo(NF1 was dual channel, jsut not very good). Add to that their developement has been on teh AThlon XP platform, no early mobo's were ever announced or shown, or heard about. This all makes sense when we are seeing 2 things, early benchies leaking, on Via boards, not NF3, companies don't leak the worse performing results, they leak the best ;) . Also a couple peeps with early boards are suggesting that 3dmark quale 3 are deffo faster on teh Via mobo's.
ive seen the 1.4amd64 beat a 3.1p4 in 3d mark, how sexual is that.Quote:
Originally posted by |SilentDeath|
there is point, the amd64s r fkn fast, with a 2ghz beating a p4 @ 4.1ghz.... and thats in 32bit mode.. i want one!
It does if it busts 1 year + 1 day after oyu bought it, but still no one else you know has jumped into the new format yet.Quote:
Originally posted by drunkenmaster
Now isn't a bad time to come, also, doesn't matter what stuff you are buying, anything can die and need RMA'ing, diff chip mobo makes no difference whatsoever.
Also, if one component breaks 4 months in, you cant just (for ex.) swap in your old cpu/mobo to keep the system on its legs whilst you wait for the rma.
Think about it. The posts on these forums - the plees for help. Usually you just want to post "God dam it, just swap things in and out until you find what isnt working". But unfortunately 80% of the peeps posting dont have extra kit
When you stick to a format for a while you tend to end up with extra chips/mobos lying around. I think I have about 5 different socketA chips now.
For someone who may already have an intel format chip, the decision coming up whether to buy another intel chip or the new AMD 64 could indeed be swung by this.
To me £400 chips are never cost affective. Do they go 4 times as fast as £100 cpu? Pre 1997 before GPU's and when software was still waiting for the hardware to advance (instead of being the other way round today) then spending £££ on cpus could make some sense for the home user.Quote:
Originally posted by drunkenmaster
Yes the AMD64 is cost effective, the new chips will be £375 on release, and are faster than a 3.2Ghz 800Mhz fsb P4 by , well, a freaking large amount, the 3.2Ghz P4 being upwards of £450. So cost effective, considerably.
It depends on your definition of the term and what market you are aiming it at i.e. server markets where buying a chip that will last 3 months longer = longer uptime + less man hours + overall service charges - makes hardware costs less relevant etc.
What you don't seem to get is, teh 2.4C is actually a downclocked 3.0C, IE, if you DIDN'T have that £500 chip on release, subsidising the 2.4C, there would BE NO 2.4C. Likewise without the £400 3200+ there would have been NO 2500+'s. Its the way the world works, in 2-3 months, there will be a 2500+ equivilent on the Ath 64 world, well, more like a month I'd guess.
The only way you CAN afford the lower chips, is by people subsidising you and paying more for the same chip, so bark as much as you want, but ultimately, other people are paying for your chip, so maybe be less judgemental of the other chips.
hardware costs are very relevant in the computer industy, its just for many company's, maybe gfx rendering, its simple, the faster they can get work done, they more they can do, so they buy teh chips that will be fastest without overclocking, and with a garentee from manu that it will run that speed.
PS, since when has hardware been waiting for software to advance? HL2 will only jsut play on recent hardware(without looking like pap). As its supposed to run, less than 5 gfx cards will play it as designed to, nothing currently available will be able to run it in 1600x1200+ fullscreen aa+af, yet in a year, with NEW hardware, we will be able to.
As far as being costeffective, for companies, as i said, when power is needed, this is cheaper than the slower competition, so very cost effective for them, and for you, this means it will sell more, thus making the lower end, subsidised chips even cheaper, hence cost effective for you.
If this chip was £800, then the cheap versions out in a few months max, would NOT be £70, not even close. get it?
funny thing is, if you clocked a celeron to 3ghz, then downclocked a ath64 for 1ghz
the athlon 64 would easily cream it :p, amd is the way to go
Haha! damn right it would! :DQuote:
Originally posted by Swafeman
funny thing is, if you clocked a celeron to 3ghz, then downclocked a ath64 for 1ghz
the athlon 64 would easily cream it :p, amd is the way to go
if you think, though, that Intel dont have a 64bit ready to roll within a year max dependant on the K8 success, ur kidding urself. Also, i dont think it is worth comparing the K8 to P4s, since P5s will be out shortly and that is where we can really see which is better.
For me however, it is AMD regardless, given that they are cheaper and i wont be able to afford an intel! Maybe i will wait and get a K8 though... decisions decisions!
drunkenmaster, what you don't seem to get is that trickle more of less represents the average buyer's opinions, and the average buyer won't be buying into A64 tech until sometime next year at the earliest.
Pretty much the only people that are going to be jumping on board now are the rich and the enthusiasts that "need" the latest whatever. This is the way that things happen in this business (and pretty much every other technology led sector), always have, and always will.
The vast majority of people will be holding off until the prices drop to a more wallet friendly level, the 64bit software is available (namely windows etc), and the techonolgy has proven itself.
The only way that people are going to get into this earlier will be if the box-shifters like dell etc soak up some of the extra cost of the new technology, resulting in systems costs similar to the mainstream at the moment.
As for the "Why settle for less" argument, the simple answer is compromise. It's cheaper, the technology is proven, and it's going to be more than enough to anything anyone wants to do for the forseeable.
You remember that AMD had to reduce their original intended release clock speed of the Opertron and are now only getting back up there. That they were having a problem with yields and that the major issue was that the on chip cache wasnt coping with the high frequencies giving concern that the chip could have problems scaling in future. You realise that the 1.4ghz chips were the ones that's cache had failed at 1.8Ghz - so its not as if you can automatically expect to buy your "2500+" in "1 months time" and guarantee that it will scale to big brother speeds.Quote:
Originally posted by drunkenmaster
[B]What you don't seem to get is, teh 2.4C is actually a downclocked 3.0C, IE, if you DIDN'T have that £500 chip on release, subsidising the 2.4C, there would BE NO 2.4C. Likewise without the £400 3200+ there would have been NO 2500+'s.
What does ATI and Nvidia make most of their money on? CPU market is different (its obvious why AMD wanted to move into the more lucrative enterprise market), but they will still likely make more profit on the middle market. They wouldnt bring out Durons if it wasnt worth their while. Shall I turn the tables on you and say that there wouldnt be an AMD 64 if they hadn't have 'won' the value market in the past - they wouldnt still be in business.You can try to squint at this from as many different angles as you want. A home user gets more for their money buying a chip at a different stage of its life cycle.Quote:
The only way you CAN afford the lower chips, is by people subsidising you and paying more for the same chip, so bark as much as you want, but ultimately, other people are paying for your chip, so maybe be less judgemental of the other chips.
So now a 2.4C isnt actually a downclocked 3.0C?Quote:
hardware costs are very relevant in the computer industy, its just for many company's, maybe gfx rendering, its simple, the faster they can get work done, they more they can do, so they buy teh chips that will be fastest without overclocking, and with a garentee from manu that it will run that speed.
Why do new console games look so good even when running at low TV resolutions? Its because the designers have tuned the polygon count to match the capabilities of the hardware. [yes I know recent ones actually use aa etc]Quote:
PS, since when has hardware been waiting for software to advance? HL2 will only jsut play on recent hardware(without looking like pap). As its supposed to run, less than 5 gfx cards will play it as designed to,
The fact that we see so many benches with 4xaa+8xaf running games that look fine at 1600x1200 is proof that 1 year old cards like the 9700pro entered the market way before there was any software capable of stretching its legs.
Remember when we bought new cpu's that made our desktop environments go quicker? I'll also remind you that Half life 2 still isnt out.
you can't run a 2.4C at 3Ghz without overclocking fsb, so for people whose lively hood depends on stability, and efefctive production, running a bunch of servers/rendering farm at 250Mhz fsb, with lower latency ram and more heat troubles, doesn't happen.
Stoo, lots of people buy computers with 3Ghz P4's in, they are £450, the ath 64 will be £375 on release, cheaper in larger bulk to the likes of Dell, so. Anyway, most of the people i know, from a variety of incomes, tend to buy once every 2-3 years and spend like 1.5k or so when they do, that will easily buy a ath 64 rig, which would also be the fastest rig, by quite a margin, that they can buy.
Also, 64bit windows is here, but whats more is, you don't need ANY 64 bit software to use the ath 64, its just that much faster that it is worth getting.
As for other dude again, Opterons were failed higher cores? Thats why anandtech, and others could easily clock there 140 to 144. Did it ever occur to you that, they didn't need to release at 2Ghz, as, it was the fastest server chip around at 1.4Ghz? , really, you mean if a company has the fastest chip around, and can extend the life of a chip by not rushing out what they can produce out the door, they can make more money? Shocking.
AS for what your saying about home users getting better value at different point in cycle, i have to say, nicely reworded what i said , well done.
The main point here is you are saying its too expensive. Its faster than a 3200+ barton, yet will be the same price the barton was 2 days ago. its faster than a 3.2Ghz P4 thats £450, and it will be close to £100 cheaper. The simple fact is, If they priced it accordingly, the Ath 64's would ALWAYS be more expensive than a P4, that would mean that the lowest ath 64, would never make it down apst £150. The fact is, that as its a cost effective chip, cheaper to produce. They can price it lower than the SLOWER opposition, they will reduce prices to £200 then, £140. Thats only on the current 3200+ version . Knowing amd, and what they've done with every new chip version, is they release a few budget, lower end versions of the chip, so people can buy down the range. You can't however just make a worse batch of cores, its impossible, and stupid. The chip will be made that will do 3200+ minimum, we shoudl see similar chips to a 2500+ within 2 months.
Point is, if you can get one, which will obviously do 3200+, how is that not cost effective.
AS for Durons, well, have no idea what you are talking about, the Athlon was first, and IT enabled the release of the Duron, NOT vice versa, so, ya argument sucks. By me saying it enabled the release of the duron, the Duron is a blooming athlon. You also helped me prove my point, there is a big advantage of releasing slower chips, to get teh whole market. AMD, by bringing out lower clocked Ath 64's, will persuade all those people, who are thinking " I want a new chip, but these new 64's are out, don't wanna get something worse, so i guess i'll wait till the 3200+ is cheap", people not buying are lsot profits, so they provide a cheap for every occasion. It is how they've stayed in buisness.
drunkenmaster:
Windows 64bit edition most certainly is not "here" (unless you are in the industry or are on the beta program, you will have an early pirate copy), it is on a limited beta release to co-incide with the limited "trickle release" of the Athlon64, the full production isn't due to swing into action until Q1/Q2 next year - That has been documented on many, many sites.
The facts don't change - the Athlon64 until the middle of next year will pretty much be restricted to the rich and the hardware enthusiasts, AMD understands this, so does anyone else that has any inkling of how the industry works.
The Athlon64 lite (or whatever it is called, can't remember off hand) has already been documented and is basically those opterons that have cache problems, but with the problem part of the cache disabled (Basically due to the sheer amount of chache included on such a large die, some of it was faulty, so they will be recycled).
You really need a better understanding of how cpu cores are produced and how they get to market to understand the points that myself and Trickle have put forward.
For the *average* user and the *mainstream* market the initial cores produced DO NOT represent good value for money.
These initial cores will be slower and hence more expensive than 3-6 months down the line when production of the cores has been ramped up, and AMD (or intel for that matter) is getting better yields of the chips, again this is simple fact and has been documented many times over the years.
Eventually once enough demand for the various range of chips is there, AMD will start underclocking chips in order to fill the greater demand for the slower, and most importantly, cheaper chips.
This is where we get the overclocking "uber" chips from.
The whole thing is governed by the manufacturing product life cycle, this is standard theory taught in every business school on the planet.
Here is a quick over-view:
http://www.csupomona.edu/~wcweber/30...301/img004.gif
and the graphical version:
http://www.csupomona.edu/~wcweber/30...301/img005.gif
Relating this to CPU manufacturing:
The embrionic stage is the initial run, low yields producing the engineering samples, and then the very first chips hitting market. (The initial Opterons/A64's in this case)
Moving on the yields move up, the manufacturing process gets better and the prices drop a little, but the prices still remain high and the sales are still low. This is roughly the stage the A64 is getting into now, and this is the point I was making about being pretty much the reserve of the rich and the enthusiasts.
Then we hit the growth stage, this is where the manufacturing process is hitting enough to satisfy the high end markets and just starting to creep into the medium-high systems. This will probably be around christmas/new year.
Around that and the next stage in the product life cycle is where the "harry homeowner" jumps onboard the A64 in droves, where the product has proven itself, the software has been released and the production volumes are up high enough to drive the prices of the lower end chips down to consumer friendly levels, usually around the point where the low-mid range chips are coming in around the £150 mark.
By the time the decline phase hits the critical point, the next core should start to appear and the whole process starts over.
The whole thing shifts backwards and forwards a little with slight core revisions, speed bumps, and other factors like market conditions etc, but it more or less follows the above. This has been proven time and time again in the past, with the only changing trend being the move to shorter and shorter life cycles.
Your rantings do not change the facts, or history.
So how come, for instance, when teh t-bred's came out, they didn't continue to use the cheaper(at that point) and higher yield Xp's for the slower chips, which they were producing, but moved DIRECTLY, to producing "underclocked" faster t-bred chips. Because it is FAR FAR FAR FAR cheaper for them to make one chip and sell all the chips off that at whatever speeds are needed, via multiplier changing, to sell as quickly as possible.
We won't agree on windows for now i guess, of course you are trying to say there is no 64bit windows, which afaik is false, but you are right, the version, that will natively support both 32bit and 64bit, needed for the ath 64 to really get going.
only problems with what you are saying are, yields are unnervingly, and uinexpected, very high. The ath lite's, are, afaik, made up by you. The product cycles you state, are accurate, but, as with anything, any one of those cycles can pass at any point. The opteron is in pretty high demand, as its faster, and cheaper than the xeon.
The production is already pretty cheap, as yields are FAr higher than expected.
If the first 64 to be released is sub £400, and most of the people i know, plump for machines over 1K, these can easily become large volume sales imediately.
The point is, who are you to decide, when these different stages will occur.
as you keep missing, the software that supports this is already there, as its 100% compatible with every single piece of software we all own, and its faster using it. Therefore waiting for the very specific 32/64bit version of windows would be nice, but will not really provide anything useful, as 99% of the other software, will just sue the 32bit part of the OS, which is already available.
The product doesn't really need to prove itself, if it works it works, the athlon t-bred didn't need to "prove" itself, it just was. What do you think will be proved about this chip that we don't already know?
I'd imagine the chips, when made available to dell, will be what, around teh £350 mark, that will make it faster and cheaper than everything above a 2.8C Intel chip(with it being £200 or so). That means it can already displace those chips and become the value high end chip.
ANyway, despite all that you are still arguing, without reading or understanding anything i have said. Try looking back, i haven't said its teh cheapest chip available now, i have said multiple times that by late october, mid novemeber, we will see faster versions, and this one, the 3200+ will drop to around the £250 mark, thats allready very cheap, by xmas, when intel might have some P4EE available, at £600, they will bring in yet another chip to show it jsut whose boss. That should push teh 3200+ down to sub £200.
I repeatedly say that, having this chip debuting at £375retail, is very cost effective as we will see some very lowe priced version in the pretty near future. IT COULD be priced higher than the top end P4, at £600-700, because its faster, we would therefore never see them in the next year, at £100, we would see intel style pricing. We aren't, hence they are cheap, your deffinition may be different, but for me, if its cheaper and faster, its cost effective for me, and everyone buying it. Perhaps, for you to disagree, you believe the opposite to be true, and feel the P4 is cost effective right now?
Because it was only a slight core revision, not an entirely new chip.Quote:
Originally posted by drunkenmaster
So how come, for instance, when teh t-bred's came out, they didn't continue to use the cheaper(at that point) and higher yield Xp's for the slower chips, which they were producing, but moved DIRECTLY, to producing "underclocked" faster t-bred chips. Because it is FAR FAR FAR FAR cheaper for them to make one chip and sell all the chips off that at whatever speeds are needed, via multiplier changing, to sell as quickly as possible.
Can you walk into a shop and buy a copy of Windows XP 64 bit edition? No you can't, because it is only due to go on a limited beta as the first A64 chips arrive.Quote:
Originally posted by drunkenmaster
We won't agree on windows for now i guess, of course you are trying to say there is no 64bit windows, which afaik is false, but you are right, the version, that will natively support both 32bit and 64bit, needed for the ath 64 to really get going.
See here for details: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/32356.html
Oh, sorry, you were trying to trip me up.. Yes, you can get a version of XP 64 bit that is shipped with Itanium systems, but that version has no compatibility with the Opteron/A64 platform, so is an essentially useless and pointless petty argument.
Sorry, I said I couldn't remember the exact name of the chip, but here it is: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...821060723.htmlQuote:
Originally posted by drunkenmaster
The ath lite's, are, afaik, made up by you. The product cycles you state, are accurate, but, as with anything, any one of those cycles can pass at any point. The opteron is in pretty high demand, as its faster, and cheaper than the xeon.
This way the chips that failed on cache can be recycled and resold as something useful.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cac...ng_en&ie=UTF-8Quote:
Originally posted by drunkenmaster
The production is already pretty cheap, as yields are FAr higher than expected.
If the first 64 to be released is sub £400, and most of the people i know, plump for machines over 1K, these can easily become large volume sales imediately.
"We will add some volume [behind the new 64-bit CPU], and you will see it for the Christmas season but it will not be millions of units," Rivet added.
As I said before it's an educated guess based on previous chip release cycles.Quote:
Originally posted by drunkenmaster
The point is, who are you to decide, when these different stages will occur.
No, I didn't miss it, but as you, yourself pointed out before, "but you are right, the version, that will natively support both 32bit and 64bit, needed for the ath 64 to really get going."Quote:
Originally posted by drunkenmaster
as you keep missing, the software that supports this is already there, as its 100% compatible with every single piece of software we all own, and its faster using it. Therefore waiting for the very specific 32/64bit version of windows would be nice, but will not really provide anything useful, as 99% of the other software, will just sue the 32bit part of the OS, which is already available.
As mentioned before, AMD aren't going to be shipping the processors in any great volume until xp64 has gone gold at a minimum anyway..
Quote:
AMD Chappy Said:
"It will fit in the window [of Christmas selling season] but--not trying to steal the thunder from the 23rd [of September product launch], its ramp will be slow and not huge volumes in the fourth quarter this year," Rivet said. "We want to make sure we extract the appropriate amount of value since it is both a 64-bit and 32-bit machine. We don't want to get it out there as a 32-bit 'equivalent' [price for the new processor and targeted systems]. We still do have the highest performing 32-bit processor on the market--the XP 3200+ today," he said, referring to AMD's existing Athlon XP 3200+.
Every new product needs to prove itself, in the market, the A64 hasn't proven itself yet because it hasn't yet hit the market, it may be a very short time to prove itself, but it is something that *every* new product goes through in some form or another.Quote:
Originally posted by drunkenmaster
The product doesn't really need to prove itself, if it works it works, the athlon t-bred didn't need to "prove" itself, it just was. What do you think will be proved about this chip that we don't already know?
Maybe, but again, no volume production until the new year at least.Quote:
Originally posted by drunkenmaster
I'd imagine the chips, when made available to dell, will be what, around teh £350 mark, that will make it faster and cheaper than everything above a 2.8C Intel chip(with it being £200 or so). That means it can already displace those chips and become the value high end chip.
You've changed your point multiple times, you originally said:Quote:
Originally posted by drunkenmaster
ANyway, despite all that you are still arguing, without reading or understanding anything i have said. Try looking back, i haven't said its teh cheapest chip available now, i have said multiple times that by late october, mid novemeber, we will see faster versions, and this one, the 3200+ will drop to around the £250 mark, thats allready very cheap, by xmas, when intel might have some P4EE available, at £600, they will bring in yet another chip to show it jsut whose boss. That should push teh 3200+ down to sub £200.
I repeatedly say that, having this chip debuting at £375retail, is very cost effective as we will see some very lowe priced version in the pretty near future. IT COULD be priced higher than the top end P4, at £600-700, because its faster, we would therefore never see them in the next year, at £100, we would see intel style pricing. We aren't, hence they are cheap, your deffinition may be different, but for me, if its cheaper and faster, its cost effective for me, and everyone buying it. Perhaps, for you to disagree, you believe the opposite to be true, and feel the P4 is cost effective right now?
Neither myself or trickle disputed the fact that later on in the product cycle the A64 would become cost effective, in fact that was our whole point. (eg the initial release will be expensive, and the average user wouldn't buy in because it wasn't cost effective at that point, and would be better off waiting a few months for the price to come down.)Quote:
Originally posted by drunkenmaster
Yes the AMD64 is cost effective, the new chips will be £375 on release, and are faster than a 3.2Ghz 800Mhz fsb P4 by , well, a freaking large amount, the 3.2Ghz P4 being upwards of £450. So cost effective, considerably.
It is in fact you that have changed your argument to say what we originally said in the first place..
I guess we'll all find out the exact volumes and prices later on in the year, and some of us probably won't be surprised.